Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered without the description. This description goes further by disclosing what the preview actually reports (stages in use, candidate counts, suggested same-name mapping), which is real behavioral content not present in annotations or any output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and scope, then adds the no-side-effects guarantee as a short trailing clause. No padding, no restatement of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully summarizes the return payload via the enumerated preview contents, and annotations carry the safety profile. What is missing is any explanation of the three input parameters, particularly request_id, leaving the caller to infer their roles.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. job_id and pipeline_id are only obliquely implied ('the job's', 'its pipeline'), and request_id is never mentioned at all — its purpose (idempotency/dedup key) is left entirely to guesswork.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('assigning a hiring pipeline to a job'), and enumerates what the preview surfaces: stages in use, candidate counts, and same-name mapping. The phrase 'before changing its pipeline' implicitly distinguishes it from the bind sibling yardstick_pipelines_assign_to_job, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'before changing its pipeline' gives clear temporal context for when to call this: prior to the actual assignment. Combined with 'Makes no changes,' an agent can infer this is the safe pre-flight step. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are named, but the convention in this toolset (every *_bind has a *_preview) is reinforced rather than contradicted.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.